A Framework On Collaborative Learning Activities To Actively Engage Students In Learning Management System.

(1)

Faculty of Information and Communication Technology

A FRAMEWORK ON COLLABORATIVE LEARNING ACTIVITIES

TO ACTIVELY ENGAGE STUDENTS IN LEARNING

MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

Mastura Binti Mohd Azlim

Doctor of Philosophy

(2)

A FRAMEWORK ON COLLABORATIVE LEARNING ACTIVITIES TO ACTIVELY ENGAGE STUDENTS IN LEARNING MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

MASTURA BINTI MOHD AZLIM

A thesis submitted

in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Faculty of Information and Communication Technology

UNIVERSITI TEKNIKAL MALAYSIA MELAKA

(3)

DECLARATION

I declare that this thesis entitled “A Framework on Collaborative Learning Activities to Actively Engage Students in Learning Management System” is the result of my own research except as cited in the references. The thesis has not been accepted for any degree and is not concurrently submitted in candidature of any other degree.

Signature :………..

Name : Mastura Binti Mohd Azlim

(4)

APPROVAL

I hereby declare that I have read this dissertation and in my opinion this dissertation is sufficient in terms of scope and quality as a partial fulfillment of Doctor of Philosophy.

Signature :……….

Supervisor Name : Profesor Dr. Burairah Hussin

(5)

DEDICATION

(6)

ABSTRACT

Learning management system is an electronic learning platform to deliver, monitor and manage learning. However, past research showed less engagement among students in building knowledge because often times the students are treated as mere technology users. In addition, many instructors do not fully utilise the tools provided in the learning management system (LMS) and have use it only to upload notes and announcement. The purpose of this study is to introduce the implementation framework named Collaborative Learning Activities Framework (CLAF) into LMS that can help the instructors to fully utilise the tools in LMS by constructing collaborative learning activities. This framework

also aims to increase students’ engagement in the learning activities provided. This study involves 119 students and 30 lecturers from Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka (UTeM), Melaka. The separate pre-post engagement research design was implemented to assess the

(7)

ABSTRAK

(8)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to acknowledge the guidance, encouragement and support provided by my supervisors, Professor Dr. Burairah Hussin, Dr. Zulisman Maksom and Dr. Kalthom Husain.

My appreciation also dedicated to Dr. Gede Pramudya Ananta, Associate Professor Dr. Abd Samad Shibghatullah and Dr. Siti Nurul Mahfuzah Mohamad for all the advice and comments during analysis and writing this thesis.

I would also like to thank the participants who volunteered to act as subjects for this research.

(9)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.3.1 Instructors’ Perception towards LMS 7

1.3.2 Instructors’ LMS Utilisation 8

1.3.3 Instructors’ Barriers in Utilise LMS 9

1.4 Problem Statement 11

1.5 Research Objectives 14

1.6 Research Questions 15

1.7 Research Contribution 16

1.8 Scope of Study 16

1.9 Research Conceptual Framework 18

1.9.1 Analysis Phase 18

1.9.2 Design Phase 19

1.9.3 Development Phase 19

1.9.4 Implementation Phase 19

1.9.5 Evaluation Phase 20

1.10 Definition of Terms 22

1.10.1 Learning Management System 22

1.10.2 Tools 22

1.10.3 Framework 23

1.10.4 Collaborative Learning Activities 25

1.10.5 Students’ Engagement 25

1.10.6 Instructors’ Motivation 26

1.11 Summary 26

(10)

2. LITERATURE REVIEW 28

2.1 Introduction 28

2.2 Pedagogy in 21st Century 28

2.2.1 Pedagogical Elements 32

2.2.2 Teaching Strategy 32

2.2.2.1 Instructor-centered Learning 33

2.2.2.2 Student-centered Learning 35

2.2.2.3 Materials-centered Learning 36

2.2.2.4 The Implication of Teaching Strategy to the Research 40

2.3 The Learning Process 41

2.3.1 Learning Theory 41

2.3.1.1 Behaviorism Learning Theory 42

2.3.1.2 Cognitivism Learning Theory 43

2.3.1.3 Constructivism Learning Theory 43

2.3.1.4 Connectivism Learning Theory 45

2.3.1.5 The Implication of Learning Theory to the Research 46

2.3.2 Engagement Theory 49

2.3.2.1 Relate 49

2.3.2.2 Create 50

2.3.2.3 Donate 50

2.3.2.4 The Implication of Engagement Theory to the Research

51

2.4 Relationship and Environment 52

2.4.1 E-Learning 53

2.4.2 Learning Management System 57

2.4.2.1 Strength of Learning Management System 59 2.4.2.2 Weaknesses of Learning Management System 60 2.4.2.3 Learning Management System in University 61 2.4.2.4 The Implication of LMS to the Research 62

2.5 Pedagogy in Learning Management System 63

2.5.1 Pedagogical Agent 65

2.5.2 Instructors’ Motivation to Utilise LMS 66

2.5.3 Students Engagement in LMS 70

2.5.4 The Implication of Pedagogy in LMS to the Research 72

2.6 Collaborative Learning Activities 77

2.6.1 Case Studies 79

2.6.2 Peer Writing 80

2.6.3 Roundrobin 81

2.6.4 Six Thinking Hats 81

2.6.5 Think Pair Share 82

2.6.6 The Implication of Collaborative Learning Activities to the Research

83

2.7 Summary 84

(11)

3. DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY 86

3.1 Introduction 86

3.2 Research Framework 86

3.3 Theoretical Framework 88

3.3.1 Independent Variables 88

3.3.2 Dependent Variables 89

3.3.3 Moderator Variables 89

3.4 CLAF Life Cycle 90

3.5 Research Design 91

3.6 Development of Collaborative Learning Wizard 92

3.6.1 Analysis Phase 92

3.6.2 Design Phase 95

3.6.2.1 Collaborative Learning Wizard Design 96 3.6.2.2 Collaborative Learning Wizard Content 99 3.6.2.3 Collaborative Learning Activity Procedure 99

3.6.3 Development Phase 111

3.6.3.1 Collaborative Learning Wizard 113

3.6.3.2 Pilot Test 113

3.6.3.3 Reliability Testing 114

3.6.4 Implementation Phase 115

3.6.4.1 Training Session 117

3.6.4.2 Procedure 118

3.6.4.3 Experts Review 119

3.6.4.4 Refined CLAF 119

3.6.5 Evaluation Phase 121

3.6.5.1 Separate-sample Pre-Engagement Post-Engagement Design

123

3.6.5.2 Participants 124

3.6.5.3 Methods of Data Collection 126

3.7 Summary 130

4. IMPLEMENTATION AND VALIDATION 132

4.1 Introduction 132

4.2 System Requirement 132

4.2.1 Plug-ins Installation 134

4.2.1.1 Theme: Educator 137

4.2.1.2 Report: Forum Graph 138

4.2.1.3 Block: Learning Outcome Wizard 139

4.2.1.4 Activity: Journal 139

4.2.1.5 Activity: Mindmap 140

(12)

5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 152

5.2 Research Questions Result and Analysis 152

5.2.1 Research Question 4 153

5.2.4.1 Instructors’ Demographic 157

5.2.4.2 Result and Analysis for Motivation 158 5.2.4.3 Result and Analysis for Motivation: Usefulness 159 5.2.4.4 Result and Analysis for Motivation: Ease of Use 161 5.2.4.5 Result and Analysis for Motivation: Satisfaction 163 5.2.4.6 Result and Analysis for Motivation: Confidence 164 5.2.4.7 Result and Analysis for Motivation: Reward 166

5.2.5.1 Students’ Demographic 168

5.2.5.2 Students’ Engagement Experimental Analysis 168 5.2.5.3 Document Analysis Students’ Engagement Using

Report

170

5.3 Summary 173

6. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE RESEARCH 174

6.2 Discussion 174

6.2.1 Designing Collaborative Learning Activity Framework 174 6.2.2 Development of Collaborative Learning Wizard 176 6.2.3 Instructors’ Motivation in Utilising LMS Tools 176

6.2.4 Students’ Active Engagement in LMS 178

6.3 Research Contribution 180

6.3.1 Contribution to Pedagogical Elements Implementation in LMS 181 6.3.2 Contribution to Conduct Collaborative Learning Activities in

LMS

181 6.3.3 Contribution to Motivate Instructors to Utilise LMS Tools 183 6.3.4 Contribution to Actively Engage Students in LMS Learning

Activities

183

6.4 Research Limitation 184

6.4.1 Tools in LMS 184

6.4.2 Engagement Theory 185

6.4.3 Collaborative Learning Wizard Design 185

6.5 Future Research 185

6.6 Summary 186

REFERENCES 188

(13)

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE TITLE PAGE

1.1 Perception Likert Scale 7

1.2 Instructors Perception 8

1.3 Utilisation Likert Scale 8

1.4 LMS Tools Utilisation 9

1.5 Instructors' Barriers 10

1.6 Tools in Learning Management System 23

1.7 Pedagogy Model 24

2.1 Examples of Learning Activities 39

2.2 Connectivism Continuum Stages 46

2.3 Implication of Learning Theories to the Research 48 2.4 Implication of Engagement Theory to the Research 52 2.5 Comparison of Traditional Learning and e-Learning 54

2.6 LMS in Public Universities 62

2.7 LMS Utilisation Related Theories 67

2.8 Motivation Models 68

2.9 Six Thinking Hats Instruction for Students 82

2.10 Implication of Collaborative Learning to the Research 84

(14)

3.2 Moderator Variables 90

3.3 CLW Design Explanation 98

3.4 Case Studies Procedure 102

3.5 Peer Writing Procedure 104

3.6 Roundrobin Procedure 106

3.7 Six Thinking Hats Procedure 108

3.8 Think Pair Share Procedure 111

3.9 Pilot Test Participants 114

3.10 Reliability Testing 115

3.11 Summary of Training Session 117

3.12 Experimental Procedure 118

3.13 Experts Review on CLW 119

3.14 Participants Involves in Training 124

3.15 Participants Involves in Experimental Testing 125

3.16 List of Instruments 125

3.17 Engagement Theory Indicator 128

4.1 Open Source LMS Comparison 133

4.2 Basic Requirements 134

4.3 Installed Plug-ins 135

5.1 CLAF Pedagogical Elements 153

5.2 Preferred Collaborative Learning Activities 155

5.3 Instructors' Demographic Information 157

5.4 Student's Demographic Information 168

(15)

5.6 Significant 170

(16)

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE TITLE PAGE

1.1 Research Conceptual Framework 21

1.2 Pedagogy Model 24

2.1 Theoretical Dimension of Pedagogy 29

2.2 CLAF Conceptual Framework 74

3.1 Research Framework 87

3.2 Theoretical Framework 88

3.3 CLAF Life Cycle 90

3.4 The Analysis Phase 94

3.5 The Design Phase 95

3.6 CLW Implementation Design 97

3.7 Case Studies 101

3.8 Peer Writing 103

3.9 Roundrobin 105

3.10 Six Thinking Hats 107

3.11 Think Pair Share 110

3.12 The Development Phase 111

3.13 Collaborative Learning Wizard Front-page 113

(17)

3.15 Refined CLAF 121

3.16 The Evaluation Phase 121

3.17 Separate Sample Pre Engagement-Post Engagement Design 123

3.18 Likert Scale 128

3.19 Motivation Indicator 130

4.1 Collaborative Learning Wizard Development 133

4.2 Theme Educator 137

4.12 Course Information Required 145

4.13 Student Enrolment 146

4.14 Enrolment Information 146

4.15 Manual Enrolment 147

4.16 Add a Block 148

4.17 Move a Block 148

4.18 Select Activities 149

(18)

5.2 Result of Usefulness 160

5.3 Result of Ease of Use 162

5.4 Result of Satisfaction 163

5.5 Result of Confidence 165

(19)

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX TITLE PAGE

A Preliminary Questionnaire 236

B Collaborative Learning Wizard Evaluation Interview 243

C Student Engagement Questionnaire 246

D Students’ Engagement Rubric 250 E Instructors’ Motivation Questionnaire 252

F Register User Fields In Moodle 255

G1 JSON Coding: Case Study 258

G2 JSON Coding: Peer Writing 260

G3 JSON Coding: Roundrobin 262

G4 JSON Coding: Six Thinking Hats 264

G5 JSON Coding: Think Pair Share 267

H1 List of Experts 269

H2 Letter of Appointment: Expert 1 270

I Document Analysis of Student Engagement 278

(20)

(21)

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

CLAF - Collaborative Learning Activity Framework

LMS - Learning Management System

CLW - Collaborative Learning Wizard

(22)

LIST OF PUBLICATION

Local Journals

Mastura Azlim, Kalthom Husain, Burairah Hussin and Zulisman Maksom (2015).

Utilization of Learning Management System in Higher Education Institution in Enhancing Teaching and Learning Process. Journal of Human Capital Development, 7(1).

International Journal

Mastura Azlim, Melor Amran and Mohd Ruhaizad Rusli. (2015) Utilization of Educational Technology to Enhance Teaching Practices: Case Study of Community College in Malaysia. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 195(3), pp. 1793–1797

International Conferences

Mastura Azlim, Kalthom Husain, Burairah Hussin and Zulisman Maksom (2013). Implementing Collaborative Learning as Teaching Method in Learning Management System to Enhance Students’ Learning Engagement. In The 7th International Conference on University Learning and Teaching (InCULT).

Mastura Azlim, Melor Amran, Mohd Ruhaizad Rusli (2015). Factors that Influence Utilization of Educational Technology to Enhance Teaching Practices: Case Study of Community College in Malaysia. World Conference on Technology, Innovation and Entrepreneurship.

(23)

Local Conferences

(24)

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Overview

In the last fifty years, education has shifted to two situations namely the relationship between instructors and students; and mode of delivery. Azmi et al. (2012) observed that

the shifts have completely changed the learning model in today’s education. The

relationship between instructors and students have grown and shift from instructor-centred learning to student-centred learning (Makrakis and Kostoulas-Makrakis, 2012; Rabbany et al., 2013). In this shifted relationship, instructors’ role can expand from knowledge transmitters towards taking an active role as facilitator, curriculum developers, knowledge constructors and transformative learning agents. The second shift is the mode of delivery in learning and teaching practices. Education is no longer bound to time and place. Education

has evolved rapidly in line with the progress of today’s technology. The use of these

technologies has been developed among schools and universities to support both students and instructors (Borwarnginn and Tate, 2014). Penny (2011) describes that educational technology offers wide opportunities of learning regardless of time and space constraints.